The United Dutch East India Company, in October of 1604, commissioned Hugo Grotius to write the Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty to justify the Dutch capture in 1603 of a wealthy Portuguese merchantman, the Santa Catarina, in the Strait of Singapore. In a clever and intricate defense of international free trade, Groitus introduced the notion of man as a sovereign and free individual with a right to self-defense and, by extension, the right of a company of private merchants to establish a trade empire. Such justification - unprecedented in early modern political and legal philosophy – revolutionized natural law and natural rights theories, just as it gave a new impetus to the discussion of “just war”. These ideas became of central importance during the Enlightenment and were used in all subsequent debate about Western colonization and imperialism. The freedom of the seas – meaning both the oceans of the world and coastal waters – became one of the most contentious issues in international law. The Free Sea, the twelfth chapter of Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, transcended its immediate legal and diplomatic contexts and had implications no less for coastal waters than it did for the high seas, for the West Indies, and for intra-European disputes as well as for relations between the European powers and the extra-European peoples. Thus, is established Maritime Admiralty Law which, today, is called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
NOTES
“It is wrong to inflict injury, but it is also wrong to endure injury. The former is, of course, the graver misdeed, but the latter is also to be avoided . . . the wise man does not belittle himself, nor does he neglect to avail himself of his own advantages, since no other person will use them more properly. . . . Thus, the truly good man will be free from the disposition to accord himself less than his due.
To be sure, such a disposition, as long as the loss resulting from it affects no one save the individual in error, customarily excites more ridicule than reproach and is called folly rather than injustice. But if at any time private loss brings common peril in its train, then indeed, we must combat it with all our force, lest the public welfare be harmfully affected by the mistaken convictions of individual citizens. Under this head should be placed the weakness of those persons who betrayed their own possessions to the enemy because some conscientious scruple prevented them from fighting.” p. 12
Note: Here I am thinking about Black Christians and their insistence on “loving they enemy” and always seeking non-violent, civil disobedience in the face of continuous brutal violations of our human rights and the clear historical record of futility of such conscientious scruple that prevents them from responding in kind.
"‘To be sure, nothing written is valid between enemies; but customs are observed by all, even when the extreme hatred has been reached.’ In the passage just quoted, the term ‘customs’ is equivalent to Cicero’s concept in the phrase, ‘not written law, but the law sprung from Nature,’ and to that expressed in the words of Sophocles, ‘not those written laws, indeed, but the immutable laws of Heaven..’ . . . . Baldus, who has wisely ruled that in any controversy arising between claimants of sovereign power the sole judge is natural reason, the arbiter of good and evil. Other quite learned authorities uphold this same doctrine. Nor does it differ greatly from the popular maxim that he who seeks for a statutory law where natural reason suffices, is lacking in intelligence. Therefore, it is from some source other than the Corpus of Roman laws that one must seek to derive that pre-eminent science which is embodied, according to Cicero, in the treaties, pacts, and agreements of peoples, kings and foreign tribes, or - to put it briefly - in every law of war and peace.” p. 16
Note: Here natural law is recognized